Vendor evidence profile
Proofpoint: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on Proofpoint for email security decisions: 37 items from 5 kinds of source, covering May 2011 to July 2026. Every item on this page links to the source it came from, carrying the date that source states and saying so plainly where it states none.
In one line
This record holds 23 advisories attributed to Proofpoint products across 37 evidence items in total, none of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 100 percent of the record comes from sources Proofpoint cannot edit. Whether Proofpoint suits your decision is not on this page: that depends on your criteria, your compliance scope and your shortlist, and this record does not know them.
Evidence items
37
in this record
Attributed advisories
23
none known exploited
Authoritative share
78%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 18, 2026
sources re-queried
How independent is this record
Sources are not equal. A vendor can rewrite its own website overnight and optimise it for whatever a language model is likely to quote. It cannot edit a government vulnerability register or a years-old discussion thread. Every item in this record is classified by how much the vendor could influence it, and the score below is the weighted result.
Independence of this record
Objectivity score 91/100
- Authoritative
- 29 items, 78 percent
- Independent
- 8 items, 22 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 0 items, 0 percent
100 percent of this record comes from sources Proofpoint does not control. The remainder is Proofpoint's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the Proofpoint record, with the body that operates each one. No rating, score or ranking is taken from anywhere, and no vendor pays to appear in this index or to change what it says.
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 25 | Nov 03, 2025 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 4 | Nov 04, 2025 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 4 | Jul 18, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 3 | Nov 01, 2024 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 1 | Dec 20, 2025 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions Proofpoint in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of Proofpoint: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, Proofpoint as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 23 records passed that test.
- WID-SEC-2025-2484mediumCVSS 5.4Nov 04, 2025
Affected products: Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
- CVE-2025-8558lowCVSS 2.3Nov 03, 2025
Insider Threat Management (ITM) Server versions prior to 7.17.2 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated users on an adjacent network to perform agent…
- CVE-2024-10635mediumCVSS 6.1Apr 28, 2025
Enterprise Protection contains an improper input validation vulnerability in attachment defense that allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to bypass attachment scanning security policy…
- CVE-2025-0431mediumCVSS 5.8Mar 19, 2025
Enterprise Protection contains a vulnerability in URL rewriting that allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to send an email which bypasses URL protections impacting the integrity of…
- CVE-2023-5770mediumCVSS 5.3Jan 09, 2024
Proofpoint Enterprise Protection contains a vulnerability in the email delivery agent that allows an unauthenticated attacker to inject improperly encoded HTML into the email body of a…
- WID-SEC-2023-2339highCVSS 8.8Sep 15, 2023
Affected products: Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
17 further attributed records are held in the pool. DecisionOS shows the full set against the components you actually run.
What practitioners report
Public threads in which engineers and administrators discuss running this product. Only threads naming Proofpoint in their own title are listed, so a discussion about someone else's incident cannot end up under this vendor. Not curated for sentiment: 3 threads in the record, most recent first.
- Hacker NewsNov 01, 2024Independent
Ask HN: Proofpoint is blocking our emails. Any recourse?
- Hacker NewsJul 30, 2024Independent
Phishing Campaign Exploits Proofpoint to Send Spoofed Emails
- Hacker NewsJun 09, 2024Independent
Spam blocklist SORBS closed by its owner, Proofpoint
The source ledger counts 1 further thread on these platforms that mention Proofpoint somewhere in the discussion without naming it in the title. They are searched and counted, and they are not listed as reports about this vendor.
Independent coverage
Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and neutral technology press that name Proofpoint. This section runs on a fixed list of such outlets rather than on whatever a web search returns for the company name, because that search is dominated by sales-intelligence profiles and directory listings which say nothing about the product. Social networks and press-release wires are excluded outright.
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Proofpoint Reviews & Ratings 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Proofpoint Reviews, Ratings & Features 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
Proofpoint - Wikipedia
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
Proofpoint ET Intelligence reviews 2026
What Proofpoint publishes about itself
The vendor's own documentation, kept separate from everything above and marked as vendor-controlled. It is useful, and it is a claim until an independent source confirms it.
What this record cannot tell you
A record is only trustworthy if it is explicit about its holes. These are the ones in the Proofpoint record right now.
A further 6 register entries mention Proofpoint without naming a product of Proofpoint as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether Proofpoint is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- Detection Accuracy (MITRE ATT&CK coverage)weight
- MDR / Managed Detection & Responseweight
- Deployment Complexityweight
- Automated Response / Remediationweight
- SIEM Integrationweight
Criteria shown as examples for email security. Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Is Proofpoint a safe choice?
The public record holds 23 advisories attributed to Proofpoint products and 37 evidence items in total. None of them appears in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. Whether that is acceptable depends on your risk appetite, your compliance scope and the alternatives on your shortlist, none of which a public page can know. This page reports the record; it does not rate the vendor.
Where does the Proofpoint data on this page come from?
From 5 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; CERT-Bund security advisories, operated by BSI, Federal Republic of Germany; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads; Practitioner discussions, operated by Reddit, public threads. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does Proofpoint pay to appear in this index?
No. There is no paid placement, no sponsored profile and no way for a vendor to change what the record says. Vendors are listed because their category comes up in enterprise technology decisions. Corrections to a specific entry can be sent to [email protected] and are checked against the source.
How much of the Proofpoint record is the vendor's own material?
0 percent. The remaining 100 percent comes from sources Proofpoint does not control. Vendor-published material stays in the record and is labelled as vendor-controlled rather than counted as independent confirmation.
Why does this page not say whether Proofpoint is better than the alternatives?
Because better only exists relative to a decision. Which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs and what counts as a dealbreaker are properties of the buyer, not of the vendor. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool and scores it against the criteria of an actual decision, which is where a comparison becomes meaningful.
How this record is built
Sources are queried on a schedule, not on request. Findings are stored with the source URL, the event date and a content hash, so the same item is never counted twice and every statement stays traceable to where it came from.
Nothing on this page is written by a language model. Counts are counts, dates are the dates the sources carry, and titles are the sources' own wording. Where a section is empty, that is a finding in itself and is stated as one.
Corrections are welcome. If an entry is wrong or an attribution is off, write to [email protected] and it gets checked against the source.
Citing this page
nexalign GmbH, Proofpoint: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 18, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/proofpoint.
Other vendors in email security
The whole field is on one page: every email security vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
Cisco Email Security
36 evidence items from 4 sources
Microsoft Defender for Office 365
35 evidence items from 4 sources
Vade
15 evidence items from 4 sources
Barracuda Email Security
11 evidence items from 4 sources
Mimecast
9 evidence items from 4 sources
Hornetsecurity
6 evidence items from 3 sources
Turn this record into a decision you can defend
DecisionOS takes the same evidence pool this page is built from, weighs it against the criteria of your actual decision, and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.